The clergy/laity distinction: a help or a hindrance to the body of Christ?

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

The clergy/laity distinction: a help or a hindrance to the body of Christ?

Forum: Theological Expressions
Date: 2001, Jul 25
From: RTC

- by jon zens Does the New Testament teach that there is a separate caste of church leaders designated as “clergy” who are over the "laity”? It does not. This baseless “clergy/laity” distinction has become such an assumed given that it permeates nearly all of our evangelical literature. The following excerpts gleaned from magazines, books, catalogues and advertisements and are typical of the extent to which the "clergy/laity" division has become a part of our evangelical language and environment. "No Christian, whether minister or lay member can build on any ..." "This journal was created with input from more than 25 pastors and lay persons ..." "In-depth look at the pastor's role as a team member working with lay persons ..." "Dialogue between a voice from the pew and a voice from the seminary - between laity and clergy. Written in everyday language ..." "Emphasizing the Pastor's role as equipper of the laity, Myrlene Hamilton recognizes ..." "A Reforming Church: Gift and Task - a conference for Pastors and Lay people..." "Some 300 persons - pastors and laity - attended this conference ..." "Providing a place and time for fellowship, support and collegiality for the clergy of our area ..." I have no desire to stir up unnecessary dissension, but I believe that if the Church is to attain her full potential as the visible body of Christ, she must divest herself of such unscriptural hierarchical structures and return to her intended "one-another" relationships and ministries. Before we examine the historical and biblical evidence, consider the following three examples of the kind of teaching that has influenced this "clergy/laity" thinking: (1) On this office [of Pastor] and the discharge of it He has laid the whole weight of the order, rule, and edification of His Church. (2) [The Pastor] is like the cerebellum, the center for communicating messages, coordinating functions, and conducting responses between the head and body . . .The pastor is not only the authoritative communicator of the truth from the Head to the body, but he is also the accurate communicator of the needs from the Body to the Head. (3) [Pastor XYZ] likened the total church to an army. The army has only one Commander-in-Chief, Jesus Christ. The local church is like a company with one company commander, the pastor, who gets his orders from the Commander-in-Chief. The company commander has lieutenants and sergeants under him for consultation and implementation, but the final responsibility for decisions is that of the company commander, and he must answer to the Commander-in-Chief . . . The Pastor has the power in a growing church . . . The pastor of a growing church may appear to outsiders as a dictator. But to the people of the church, his decisions are their decisions. A recent ad in an evangelical magazine, had the heading, "Not Every Question Gets Answered On Sunday Morning". The truth is that probably no one's questions are answered because no inquiries are allowed. The pulpit monologue precludes dialogue. The pulpit can only be occupied by certain people — the "clergy". The rest— the "laity" — sit in pews. In this dichotomy you have the essence of our religion — Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise — in a nutshell: the "clergy" are paid to give and the "laymen" pay in order to receive. This distinction permeates our religious vocabulary, and unfortunately captures the heart of our practice: we pay the "clergy" to do the necessary religious activities. While the "clergy/laity" distinction is embedded and assumed in religious circles, it cannot be found in the New Testament. It reared up its ugly head in the third century, long after Christ's apostles died. We should be pointedly reminded of the utter deceitfulness of sin when we realize how deeply such an unscriptural and damaging concept has taken root in visible Christianity. The New Testament teaches leadership among the people of God, but not in a way that leads to the "clergy/laity" conclusion. The root words from which we derive the English words "clergy" and "laity" are found in the New Testament, but our usage of "clergy/laity" is far removed from the New Testament concepts. The English word "clergy" is related to the Greek word "cleros". It means "a lot or inheritance". Nowhere in the New Testament is any form of "cleros" used to designate a separate class of "ordained" leaders. Instead, it refers to the "inheritance" (Greek: clerou) laid up for all the saints (Col. 1:12; Acts 26:18). The saints as a collective whole are conceived of in the New Testament as God's "inheritance". We have utterly perverted and turned upside-down the New Testament teaching by using the term "clergy: to refer to a special elite group of church leaders. Laity is related to the Greek word "laos", which means "people". The Greek word "laikos", which means "laity", is not found in the New Testament. All in the body of Christ, whether "saints, bishops, or deacons" (Phil. 1:1), are the "people" ("Laos") of God. "People of God" is a title of honor bestowed upon all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. It was not until the third century that "clergy" was employed to designate a limited number of persons who functioned in the Christian assemblies. One of the worst outcomes of the "clergy" doctrine was that it communicated the notion that without the "clergy" present there simply was no church. Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and many other church practices, could not happen unless a "clergyman" was present. Because the New Testament knows nothing of "clergy" the fact that a separate caste of the "ordained" permeated our vocabulary and practice illustrates rather forcefully that we do not yet take the New Testament very seriously. The "clergy" practice is a heresy that must be renounced. It strikes at the heart of the priesthood of all believers that Jesus purchased on the cross. It contradicts the shape Jesus' kingdom was to take when He said, "You are all brethren". Since it is a tradition of men, it nullifies the Word of God (Mark 7:13). Every Christian tradition has its insights and blind spots. But the "clergy" system is practiced across the board and is thus a universal blind spot. Seminaries and Bible Schools have multiplied to produce people for the "clergy" profession; ministerial conferences abound to supply support and encouragement that the "laity" cannot give; magazines are published to provide ministerial tips; pastoral search committees must be formed every time a minister moves on; clergy counseling must be provided for those who burnout and have nervous breakdowns; etc., etc. A whole intricate system is in place to perpetuate and preserve a role which the New Testament knows nothing about. Like it or not, this "clergy" role ends up requiring a virtual omni-competence from those behind the pulpit. "Clergy" are paid to perform whatever is necessary to keep the religious machinery going, and the expectations are very high for those who wear the many hats this profession demands. The deadly problem with this unscriptural system is that it eats up those within its pale. Burnout, moral lapse, divorce, and suicide are very high among the "clergy". Is it any wonder such repeated tragedies occur in light of what is expected of one person? Christ never intended anyone to fill such an ecclesiastical role. In light of Paul's remark in 1 Cor. 12:14 that "the body is not one part but many", we should be able to discern that the "clergy" position is neither healthy for those in it, nor is it beneficial for the body of Christ. The terms "Reformation" and "Renewal" are buzzwords in religious publications. Sadly, most periodicals of this sort approach the "clergy" system as sacrosanct, thereby reinforcing its stronghold in contemporary churches. I submit that to seek the renewal of the "laity" while perpetuating the "clergy" system is like mixing oil and water. Deep renewal (a healthy body) will come only as every member contributes his/her gifts and graces, which includes a leadership that practices the servant model revealed by Jesus in Mark 10:42-45. The "clergy" system stands as a monumental obstacle to genuine reformation and renewal. The church must jettison this system in order for the Word of God to have free course. If those who function as "clergy" come to conviction that this role originates from unscriptural traditions and not from New Testament patterns, there are some practical steps that must be taken: Stop using "Reverend" and other religious titles in connection with your names (and encourage others to cease using language that reflects the "clergy/laity" distinction). Renounce your "clergy" status and see yourself as part of the "Laos" of God who has manifestations of the Spirit, along with everyone else, for the good of the body (1 Cor.12:7). Teach the body that your "clergy" roles and all the expectations that go with them are based on human traditions and not the gospel. Instruct the brethren that all aspects of caring for one another rest with the body, not on some spiritual elite. Begin a new methodology of truth-seeking and truth-speaking. Instead of the "clergy" spoon-feeding the "laity", study important issues together from the Word with a view to finding Christ's will and acting upon it. Adopt a teaching style where dialogue occurs and questions/insight from others are encouraged. As the body makes concrete changes in the way "church" is done the emphasis shifts from dependency on one person to edifying multiple participation. Your financial support as a clergy person is admittedly a difficult issue, but needs to be creatively evaluated. The traditional view that it is necessary to pay the "clergy" to preach, visit parishioners, do various administrative duties, etc., is without New Testament foundation. As long as "clergy" are paid to do religious duties why should the body develop its "one-another" ministries? As ministry becomes increasingly shared in the body, it takes the load off one person and frees the congregation to evaluate how its financial resources can be maximized for edification and meeting people's needs. Obviously, the "clergy" system has become a mammoth institution. When you touch this nerve the whole body quivers. This long-standing system will not disappear overnight. Not every "clergy" person takes the New Testament seriously, but those who do need to lead the way by personal example to a paradigm shift which will better reflect the New Testament revelation of church life. People who withdraw from the traditional "clergy" model out of faithfulness to Christ will have a heavy price to pay. Nevertheless, the question still remains: Is our confession that the New Testament is sufficient for faith and practice a reality or a sham? If we are serious about following Christ, how can we remain party in perpetuating a "clergy" system which contradicts the very essence of the ecclesia our Savior purposed to build? When is enough, enough? The reality in local church life is that nothing hinders the fostering and cultivating of encouraging relationships more than the "clergy/laity" distinction. It stands as a huge road block to the very atmosphere we desperately need in our assemblies. The time has come for each of us to personally take the responsibility to live a life that refuses to knuckle under to the stifling "clergy/laity" tradition, and to begin fresh new paths of obedience where the body of Christ functions as vital parts contributing to the growth of the whole in live (Eph. 4:11-16).